Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!emory!mephisto!udel!mmdf
From: BARRETT%FOREST.ECIL.IASTATE.EDU@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marc Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: MAC ][cx appraisal
Message-ID: <15049@snow-white.udel.EDU>
Date: 26 Mar 90 22:19:44 GMT
Sender: mmdf@udel.EDU
Lines: 58


   Iowa State just opened up a fancy new MAC lab, and I have been using
one of their ][cx systems since it opened.  I am very impressed with this
system.  The multitasking is much better than I had been told [I have
been fed a lot of bull about MAC multitasking from fellow Amiga users]
the system is very easy-to-use, and the graphics just plain look GREAT.

   Let's face it: the Amiga, the way it currently is, is in depserately
in need of a total facelift.  The Amiga looks kludgy, feels kludgy, and
just plain IS kludgy.  Everything about the Amiga looks and feels
kludgy.  The Amiga suffers from too much UNIX-itis kludginess, and far
too little professionalism.  The Amiga's interlaced graphics is alo
a sore spot.  Without a flicker-fixer, the Amiga's graphics are
about as pleasing to the eye as a kick in the face is pleasing to
the head.

   On the other hand, the MAC looks professional, feels professional,
and is professional to the bone.  Everything is professional, from the
screen graphics [in which a screen graphics is a constant exact point
size in height and width] to the fonts [which are drawn in accordance
to point size and not pixel size like on the Amiga] and to the graphical
user-interface [all windows have shadows, the background screens are
always pattern-dithered, if multiple icons and menu-selected the
resulting windows are neatly stacked with each one just up&left of the
one in front of it, etc...].

   The graphics capabilities adhere neatly to this professionalism.
Although the ][cx, in spite of its speed, does not have near the
animation capbility of the Amiga, I have found that 95% of operations
use static graphics, anyway.  This is why those $150 SuperVGA cards
for the IBM [with 1024x768x256-color graphics -- my upstairs neighbor
did recently pick up one of these for $150], which can take up to
half a second to re-draw the screen, are still very popular.  The
MAC's ability to display 256 colors out of 16 Million makes its
graphics look all the more professional.

   There are also other areas which the Amiga can't even touch.
Such as built-in networking on ALL MAC models [very, very important
in an environment such as a lab or classroom.  This is one of the
many reasons why Apple sells 10 million times more computers to
schools and colleges than Commodore].

   It has been said that an Amiga can run MAC software, but a MAC
can't run Amiga software.  This is true, but I don't see why any
MAC user would want to run Amiga software.  There is much more
MAC software available than Amiga software.  There is very little
scientific available for the Amiga, and tons available for the
MAC.  Networking software for the Amiga is virtually nonexistant,
and so on.  If Mathematica was available for the Amiga, I would
purchase it, but it isn't available for the Amiga.  I can see
why.  Most software developers that spend money on the Amiga lose
money on it.  This is why so many Amiga developers have gone under
recently.

   Lately, it has been my oppinion that what ails the Amiga is
Commodore's total lack of direction with it until recently.  I
am beginning to see that this is not entirely the case.  What
ails the Amiga is the Amiga itself.